By Andy Delaney
"And that's why we NEVER talk to
the police without counsel present."
One entry order squeezed in on March 21.
It’s a bail appeal. Defendant is charged with sexual assault. He
was originally released under a 24-hour curfew to live with his mom. She moved
and he got a modification to allow him to move too. Then he went
AWOL—presumably for 109 days—and ended up with 109 curfew violations. Defendant
then lived with grandma for a little bit but that didn’t work out. A few more
moves, a few more violations, and we’re back in court for a
weight-of-the-evidence hearing. Defendant stipulates that the evidence of his
guilt is great. Mom testifies that he can live with her. State points out that
that didn’t turn out so well last time. The trial court weighs the factors
under the statute and orders defendant held without bail. Defendant
appeals. On appeal, his argument is that the trial court indicated it had
considered defendant’s mental health but there didn’t seem to be any evidence
it actually did. Therefore, defendant argues, the trial court abused its
discretion. SCOV says, “Nah.” Because this is in abuse-of-discretion land and
strict application of each factor is not required, SCOV reasons that the trial
court was within the required parameters. Defendant stays in state housing. State
v. Gundrum, 2022
VT 14 (mem.)
Comments
Post a Comment